Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns credit for the extras it supplies: 'Live' signals a fresh, non-cached probe and 'Free' signals no cost or quota consumption. It does not say what happens on component failure or what the response looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the scope (which components) is front-loaded ahead of the cost/safety note. Nothing repeats the title or wastes the agent's reading budget.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should tell the agent roughly what comes back (per-component status flags, overall health, timestamps). Instead it only names the components probed, leaving return shape and failure semantics unstated. Adequate for selecting the tool, incomplete for interpreting its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-system probe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what is probed: ledger, verifier, Arc anchoring and SML components. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (records, search, listing, proofs, methodology), none of which report health, though 'status' alone leaves the shape of the answer implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Calling it 'Live' status and tying it to what 'the board probes' implies a health-check use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus other tools or whether it should be polled first before running other operations. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.